Consider this: modern capitalism was pretty much inconceivable to people living in the feudal era. In the same way, it is possible that the system we need is inconceivable to us at the moment. Critiquing capitalism and advocating for a move away from it is still useful.
There are plenty of things that haven't been tried aside from small-scale examples:
Guide on what it means here: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=SSd7KnWN9CM
Note the red pixels are just a representation, doesn't mean the whole red area is on fire. See 1:08 to 2:10 for explanation.
If anyone wants to see the actual situation here's NASA's live map: https://firms.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/map/
and a guide on how to use it, what all the symbols mean etc: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=SSd7KnWN9CM
Yes, I see that. It's an investment blog written by the account manager of a major finance company. I'm sure he has no vested interests whatsoever and is just trying to be as factually accurate as possible.
If you don't want to read other people's thoughts on things, don't post yours on an internet forum lol.
Am happy to end the conversation on a friendly note though. If we were having this chat in person, i'd say 'fuck it, let's grab a beer and chill'. See ya.
Lmaooo "Greenablers". What a joke. That's literally a corporate PR puff piece. How is corporate greenwashing PR supposed to convince me that Capitalism drives innovation (or is good for the climate?) when countless studies of data prove it wrong? The only piece of data he cites is about the billions being spent on the 'energy transition'. I checked out his source. A good chunk of that is just government investment. Another big chunk of that is electric cars - a really stupid thing to invest in as they'll compete with renewable energy for rare earth minerals etc. Not to mention all the emissions they'll cause in production, and the fact that they'll still need half the world to be paved over in asphalt for roads and parking. Better than petrol or diesel sure, but hardly efficient.
Dense cities yes. End single-family zoning yes (doesn't really exist where I live, the US is an insane place).
Energy deregulation no. I'm sure it will be great for opening new coal plants, not a chance in hell will it lead to more nuclear power or anything useful.
Ah the innovation argument, so original. "Capitalism creates innovation". Everyone says it all the time so it must be true right? Well it isn't. Data doesn't support this argument.
Pretty much every major innovation of the past century has come from publicly funded and/or not-for-profit research and development. Capitalists only step in once the difficult part is done and the 'innovation' can be repackaged into something profitable in the short term.
See the following: https://academic.oup.com/ser/article/7/3/459/1693191
https://demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/files/Entrepreneurial_State_-_web.pdf
Capitalism definitely creates barriers to certain types of innovation. Mainly innovation that isn't profitable - see 'planned obsolesence'. It also creates barriers to profitable innovation sometimes; just look up 'patent trolls'.
But I was never even talking about innovation. You just jumped to it because that is the classic buzzword talking point that is constantly repeated everywhere. 'Develop better alternatives' doesn't have to be 'innovation'. We have the technology already, we've had it for decades. Trains and cycle lanes = better alternatives to cars. Nuclear energy = better alternative to fossil fuels.
Market capture exists everywhere, in every economic system.
Sure, this might be the case for every existing economic system. I believe we need to develop something new. Just like modern Capitalism was inconceivable to someone living in the Feudal era, a new system might be inconceivable for us right now. But it is imperative we try.
Nah. To my knowledge we have the second highest tax on energy worldwide. Has always been this way. It’s a tax thing.
Idk about the tax rates but Germany also decided to become dependent on Russian gas, which is a major factor tax or no tax.
The article is written by a left leaning press. So if you allow yourself to suggest non-neutrality, then they should be in favour of your argument.
That dude is actively trying to shape the opinion of people for his own interest. I am confident that this is work to him. He already did this with crypto or with the Tesla stock price. It’s marketing and marketing is work as well. All the political left are already supporting the idea of electric vehicles. Now it’s time for the conservatives. And musk is luring them towards his company.
If you want to believe his shitposting and constant man-child meltdowns are part of a galaxy-brained plan to convince conservatives to buy electric cars, have fun with that. In reality, he's just a self-obsessed guy seeking more and more attention and that's plainly obvious.
So I guess you are not building something yourself? You just work a well paying job? I can’t rly believe that.
You've never heard of self-employed contractors? If you have a valuable enough skill, people pay quite well for specific projects. Once the project (or your part in it) is done, you can just chill with your money, or accept a new one. It's pretty straightforward. Won't earn me billions but is good enough to have a chill life.
An ideal system does not exist. The one we have is fairly reactive.
Who said anything about an ideal system? I want a better one. Mainly one that doesn't burn down the planet I live on. We need to be working on developing new systems, but that won't happpen if we keep chanting 'Capitalism good, Communism bad'.
there is no system resilient against fraud Yet.
Resilience is not a binary. We could make a system that's relatively more resilient against fraud and/or short-term thinking.
I'm sure it's within the capacity of humanity to improve upon Capitalism. The only question is: will we do it in time to survive the 21st Century?
I swear we need to retire the term 'Capitalism' entirely because it seems like it's impossible to discuss its flaws without someone just assuming it's a statement in favour of resurrecting Stalin. This has nothing to do with communists.
Electricity can be produced in many different ways - it's just that some are more profitable than others.
Capitalism also creates an entire web of incentive structures that make it hard to develop more sustainable alternatives - e.g car industry creating 'lock-in', as described in this paper. I'm sure a similar paper could be written about some Soviet bloc state 60 years ago, but that's irrelevant. This is a problem of Capitalism and the Soviet bloc doesn't exist anymore. Just cause 'Stalin bad' doesn't mean 'Capitalism can do no harm ever'.
I was in the same position until a few weeks ago; mainly used YT for podcasts, downloading videos to watch while travelling etc.
If you have an Android phone, get the NewPipe app from F-Droid. It has pretty much everything that YT Premium offers, but free. It's been working really well for me.
I'm actually in favour of replacing most jet airliners with rail and maybe electric airships. Most short-haul flights can be replaced by rail; it's much more pleasant than flying anyway. Jets can be reserved for long-distance journeys. Being able to hop on a blimp would be cool, even if it's slower. We can make them much better and safer with today's tech.
I don't like the 'green offset' thing because it makes it look like we're 'doing something' when it's actually not doing much at all. If you want to be a utilitarian, it would be much more effective to just donate to an effective charity every time you fly.
The 'tragedy of the commons' is very much exaggerated and misunderstood. It is 100% possible to collectively govern commons without a tragedy situation, and there are plenty of examples of it happening in real life. The economist Elinor Ostrom actually won a Nobe Prize in Economics for demonstrating this.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2012/06/17/elinor-ostroms-work-on-governing-the-commons-an-appreciation/ https://aeon.co/essays/the-tragedy-of-the-commons-is-a-false-and-dangerous-myth